happy-diver
Skindiver Just feelin it
- Messages
- 5,326
- Reaction score
- 4,788
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted By Bob Halstead
PART 1
Buddies are not essential for a safe dive. On the contrary, buddies often increase the risk of a dive, either directly through unpredictable or unreliable actions, or indirectly, through an unfounded belief that security is enhanced by numbers alone, regardless of the training or state of mind of the buddy. In most instances, a competent solo diver would be much safer than the average buddy dive.
Most textbooks do not define the buddy system - an interesting point in itself. I define it as the situation that occurs when two divers of similar interests and equal experience and ability share a dive, continuously monitoring each other throughout entry, the dive, and the exit, and remaining within such distance that they could render immediate assistance to each other if required.
Obviously, this definition represents the ideal, and upon honest examination it’s clear that it has little to do with the reality as practiced by most divers. The truth is that on most dives, the buddy system fails. I’ve been an active diving instructor for 20 years, and a professional sport diver for 13 years; I’ve made over 5,000 dives and have personally supervised - without serious incident - over 90,000 dives. During this time I’ve seen buddies that were incompatible either through interest of ability; buddies that spent their dives looking for each other; divers dependant on their buddies; divers who claimed to be buddies on the boat, but who ignored each other in the water; buddies who failed to communicate; buddies who fought in the midst of a dive; and divers who failed to recognize distress in a buddy, let alone attempt to assist.
This last situation brings up a vital point. The buddy system implies that divers will be able to recognize a problem with their buddy and do something about it. Most are never put to the test, but experience indicates that if they were, many would fail. An analysis of diving fatalities in Australia and New Zealand over the past ten years found that 45% of the fatalities involved buddies who were separated by the fatal problem or who were separated after the problem commenced. Another 14% stayed with the buddy, but the buddy died anyway. Just being together is not enough.
From these observations, I’ve concluded that the buddy system is mostly mythical. It is unreasonable, unworkable, unfathomable, and unnatural. Rarely - very rarely - I see a couple who buddy dive as the ideal. In my view, most diving today is, in fact, solo diving, even if the divers claim to be buddy diving. Unfortunately, because it is taboo, most divers have had no specific training to qualify them for such solo diving.
How did we get ourselves into this mess? I am told that the "never dive alone" rule originated with the YMCA "never swim alone" program that was popular when dive instructor agencies were just getting going in the late 1950s. Why has the rule stayed with diving? Undoubtedly because people are nervous about being out of their natural breathing element and at the mercy of the monsters of the deep. Fear 2 is the motivation for the buddy system. Divers do not want to be eaten. There is nothing strange in this fear; what is strange is the response to it: get a buddy. There is an old joke that the buddy system reduces the chance of getting eaten by 50%. Regrettably, the divers that repeat this joke are often serious. Instead of finding out about real behavior of marine creatures, or developing fail-safe scuba gear and a back-up breathing system, the diving community has opted for the comfort of having a buddy. Many divers choose a buddy simply because they are alarmed at being alone, and not because there is a possibility of the buddy actually assisting in an emergency.
Unfortunately, few people defending the buddy system seem to address the critical point of whether it does, in fact, make diving safer as intended. Since the introduction of the buddy system 30 years ago, a large body of divers has developed who have made careers out of sport diving. These people must now look to their experience to decide whether or not the buddy system has worked, or whether it should be modified or even abandon.
Analysing Dive Risk
All diving involves risk. As soon as you step near a full scuba cylinder you are at risk. And every step that you take getting on and into the water increases your risk. In fact, there is an escalating scale of risk as dives become more complex. In general, the risk of a certain dive is a function of the technical requirements of the dive and the environmental conditions. It has nothing to do with the diver.
In theory, we should be able to grade every dive for its risk factor. However, this is difficult in practice. Though many cave dive have been graded, ocean dives are another matter. Ocean conditions, being variable, may make a dive low-risk one day and high-risk the next. Nevertheless, an accurate assessment of the risk factor for any dive must be made before the dive is attempted. This is why experience is so valuable. and why risk assessment is a critical duty of dive masters and instructors.
The actual danger posed by any particular dive depends on three factors: first, the dive itself - the risk factor; second, the diver attempting the dive - the skills available to overcome the risk; and third, the buddy - the wild card - who may make the dive less or more dangerous.
Safe diving occurs when the diver’s skills, experience, and knowledge match or exceed the skill, experience, and knowledge requirements of the dive. For instance, diving shallower than 30 feet in calm. clear, warm water devoid of marine life qualifies as low-risk. Yet such dive could be dangerous if the diver does not understand the consequences of breath-holding on ascent. Similarly, a dive to 200 feet in dark, cold water with a strong current is undoubtedly a high-risk dive, but one that can be made safely if the diver has the appropriate abilities and back-up. Professional divers make these kinds of dives all the time.
Of course, judging the danger of a dive is more a matter of probabilities than absolutes. A dangerous dive is one where it is likely that an injury will occur, a safe dive where it is unlikely - but not impossible - that an injury will occur. The point is that a high-risk dive - one that is deeper, longer, colder, rougher, involves 3 penetration of a wreck or a cave, encounters a current, involves dangerous marine animals, or is difficult to enter or exit from - need not be dangerous if the diver can identify the risk factors and overcome them with disciplined diver education and training.
We must also realize that there is no such thing as a completely safe dive. Nobody knows all the physiological risks associated with diving. In addition, many marine phenomena - as well as many buddies - are unpredictable. A safe diver is one who is able to assess the risk factors accurately and has a sober knowledge that his or her ability is sufficient to overcome these risks.
The crucial question in the debate between buddy diving and solo diving is how does the buddy affect the safety of the dive? Does he or she effectively add to the natural risk of the dive or reduce the risk of the dive? This obviously depends on the buddy. In many instances it would be safer to dive alone. For instance, many instructors would agree that it would be safer for them to be alone than with a student on a training dive.
The one remaining piece of the puzzle is to determine how being alone, per se, affects the risk of a dive. That is, does the buddy play an essential role in the dive? Is it possible to make a dive without a buddy and survive? Clearly, while we cannot survive a dive for more than a few minutes without a functioning regulator and a tank of air, we can certainly survive without a buddy.
Then what role does the buddy actually play? Theoretically, the buddy acts as a kind of safety factor. He is not essential, but has the purpose of preventing problems by recognizing them in the dive partner and stopping their development or effecting a rescue. Therefore, being alone does not affect the natural risk of the dive, but it does deprive the diver of a possible safety factor.
However, it is equally true that, although an ideal buddy might provide a safety factor, a less-than-ideal buddy might actually constitute an additional risk factor.
PART 1
Buddies are not essential for a safe dive. On the contrary, buddies often increase the risk of a dive, either directly through unpredictable or unreliable actions, or indirectly, through an unfounded belief that security is enhanced by numbers alone, regardless of the training or state of mind of the buddy. In most instances, a competent solo diver would be much safer than the average buddy dive.
Most textbooks do not define the buddy system - an interesting point in itself. I define it as the situation that occurs when two divers of similar interests and equal experience and ability share a dive, continuously monitoring each other throughout entry, the dive, and the exit, and remaining within such distance that they could render immediate assistance to each other if required.
Obviously, this definition represents the ideal, and upon honest examination it’s clear that it has little to do with the reality as practiced by most divers. The truth is that on most dives, the buddy system fails. I’ve been an active diving instructor for 20 years, and a professional sport diver for 13 years; I’ve made over 5,000 dives and have personally supervised - without serious incident - over 90,000 dives. During this time I’ve seen buddies that were incompatible either through interest of ability; buddies that spent their dives looking for each other; divers dependant on their buddies; divers who claimed to be buddies on the boat, but who ignored each other in the water; buddies who failed to communicate; buddies who fought in the midst of a dive; and divers who failed to recognize distress in a buddy, let alone attempt to assist.
This last situation brings up a vital point. The buddy system implies that divers will be able to recognize a problem with their buddy and do something about it. Most are never put to the test, but experience indicates that if they were, many would fail. An analysis of diving fatalities in Australia and New Zealand over the past ten years found that 45% of the fatalities involved buddies who were separated by the fatal problem or who were separated after the problem commenced. Another 14% stayed with the buddy, but the buddy died anyway. Just being together is not enough.
From these observations, I’ve concluded that the buddy system is mostly mythical. It is unreasonable, unworkable, unfathomable, and unnatural. Rarely - very rarely - I see a couple who buddy dive as the ideal. In my view, most diving today is, in fact, solo diving, even if the divers claim to be buddy diving. Unfortunately, because it is taboo, most divers have had no specific training to qualify them for such solo diving.
How did we get ourselves into this mess? I am told that the "never dive alone" rule originated with the YMCA "never swim alone" program that was popular when dive instructor agencies were just getting going in the late 1950s. Why has the rule stayed with diving? Undoubtedly because people are nervous about being out of their natural breathing element and at the mercy of the monsters of the deep. Fear 2 is the motivation for the buddy system. Divers do not want to be eaten. There is nothing strange in this fear; what is strange is the response to it: get a buddy. There is an old joke that the buddy system reduces the chance of getting eaten by 50%. Regrettably, the divers that repeat this joke are often serious. Instead of finding out about real behavior of marine creatures, or developing fail-safe scuba gear and a back-up breathing system, the diving community has opted for the comfort of having a buddy. Many divers choose a buddy simply because they are alarmed at being alone, and not because there is a possibility of the buddy actually assisting in an emergency.
Unfortunately, few people defending the buddy system seem to address the critical point of whether it does, in fact, make diving safer as intended. Since the introduction of the buddy system 30 years ago, a large body of divers has developed who have made careers out of sport diving. These people must now look to their experience to decide whether or not the buddy system has worked, or whether it should be modified or even abandon.
Analysing Dive Risk
All diving involves risk. As soon as you step near a full scuba cylinder you are at risk. And every step that you take getting on and into the water increases your risk. In fact, there is an escalating scale of risk as dives become more complex. In general, the risk of a certain dive is a function of the technical requirements of the dive and the environmental conditions. It has nothing to do with the diver.
In theory, we should be able to grade every dive for its risk factor. However, this is difficult in practice. Though many cave dive have been graded, ocean dives are another matter. Ocean conditions, being variable, may make a dive low-risk one day and high-risk the next. Nevertheless, an accurate assessment of the risk factor for any dive must be made before the dive is attempted. This is why experience is so valuable. and why risk assessment is a critical duty of dive masters and instructors.
The actual danger posed by any particular dive depends on three factors: first, the dive itself - the risk factor; second, the diver attempting the dive - the skills available to overcome the risk; and third, the buddy - the wild card - who may make the dive less or more dangerous.
Safe diving occurs when the diver’s skills, experience, and knowledge match or exceed the skill, experience, and knowledge requirements of the dive. For instance, diving shallower than 30 feet in calm. clear, warm water devoid of marine life qualifies as low-risk. Yet such dive could be dangerous if the diver does not understand the consequences of breath-holding on ascent. Similarly, a dive to 200 feet in dark, cold water with a strong current is undoubtedly a high-risk dive, but one that can be made safely if the diver has the appropriate abilities and back-up. Professional divers make these kinds of dives all the time.
Of course, judging the danger of a dive is more a matter of probabilities than absolutes. A dangerous dive is one where it is likely that an injury will occur, a safe dive where it is unlikely - but not impossible - that an injury will occur. The point is that a high-risk dive - one that is deeper, longer, colder, rougher, involves 3 penetration of a wreck or a cave, encounters a current, involves dangerous marine animals, or is difficult to enter or exit from - need not be dangerous if the diver can identify the risk factors and overcome them with disciplined diver education and training.
We must also realize that there is no such thing as a completely safe dive. Nobody knows all the physiological risks associated with diving. In addition, many marine phenomena - as well as many buddies - are unpredictable. A safe diver is one who is able to assess the risk factors accurately and has a sober knowledge that his or her ability is sufficient to overcome these risks.
The crucial question in the debate between buddy diving and solo diving is how does the buddy affect the safety of the dive? Does he or she effectively add to the natural risk of the dive or reduce the risk of the dive? This obviously depends on the buddy. In many instances it would be safer to dive alone. For instance, many instructors would agree that it would be safer for them to be alone than with a student on a training dive.
The one remaining piece of the puzzle is to determine how being alone, per se, affects the risk of a dive. That is, does the buddy play an essential role in the dive? Is it possible to make a dive without a buddy and survive? Clearly, while we cannot survive a dive for more than a few minutes without a functioning regulator and a tank of air, we can certainly survive without a buddy.
Then what role does the buddy actually play? Theoretically, the buddy acts as a kind of safety factor. He is not essential, but has the purpose of preventing problems by recognizing them in the dive partner and stopping their development or effecting a rescue. Therefore, being alone does not affect the natural risk of the dive, but it does deprive the diver of a possible safety factor.
However, it is equally true that, although an ideal buddy might provide a safety factor, a less-than-ideal buddy might actually constitute an additional risk factor.
